>I would prefer to see this phrased in terms of the XP application
>determining whether a given message conforms to a version of XP that the
>application recognises rather than in terms of comparison of twos messages.
>I don't think evolution is defined in terms of messages being compatible
>with each other but in terms of messages conforming to a given version of
>XP.
Hi Martin,
Hopefully the new wording that leaves out the 'comparison' is more
acceptable
to you.
>I'm also having some difficulty understanding what the last sentence means.
>How can an XP envelope *mandate* that an application be extended?
Sorry, wording a bit raggy there. What this is meant to mean is that
the it may be mandatory for an XP processor to process certain extensions
or fail.
--oh